14 it does not share the view of the Commission (expressed in paragraph 29 of Confidential Report No. 39/01) that “[i]t is the understanding of the Commission that the acknowledgment of responsibility by the Guatemalan State in the instant case necessarily involves acceptance of the central facts alleged and with respect to which the Commission will carry out the respective analysis […],” because the Commission has misunderstood a clear and precise recognition by the State, from which it is not possible to derive extensive implications that seek to include total acceptance of the facts and of the allegations as the applicant does. Acknowledgment of institutional responsibility derived from the fact that a domestic court already established the involvement of an agent of the Presidential General Staff, for which fact he was convicted in the trial. The Supreme Court of Justice also left open a proceeding with respect to the accessories of the murder of Myrna Mack Chang. […] Likewise, the Government of Guatemala rejects the view of the Commission with respect to the acknowledgment by the State covering the following points: the high command of the Presidential General Staff at the time of the facts issued explicit orders to Noel de Jesús Beteta Alvarez, to murder Myrna Mack Chang due to the victim’s professional activities; 2) Members of the high command of the Presidential General Staff at the time of the facts, together with other officials of that Institution prepared a prior plan to murder Myrna Mack; 3) Taking advantage of their positions at the time, or subsequently through their “subterraneous” influences, it is they who have obstructed effective administration of justice in this case.” The State of Guatemala regrets the excessive interpretation that seeks to encompass situations that were not acknowledged by the members of the Guatemalan delegation. 71. The State also objected to the aforementioned points of the Commission’s Report, because: they were never acknowledged, because if said acknowledgment had existed it would have been contrary to the independence of the branches of the State, since the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala establishes that the function of trying and promoting execution of judgments lies exclusively in the Judiciary Body and the Courts of Law. Furthermore, if an acknowledgment such as that argued by the Commission had existed, the Government of Guatemala would have been pre-judging a matter that is still before the courts of law to be studied, analyzed, and decided. […] [T]he Government of Guatemala does not agree, either, with the view of the Commission that “understands” that acknowledgment of responsibility by the State encompasses: 1) that there was obstruction of justice by agents of the State of Guatemala, especially by members of the Army, with the aim of fostering impunity of the accessories of the murder of Myrna Mack; 2) that there have been threats and intimidation carried out by Agents of the State against witnesses, judges, prosecutors, and other legal operators with the aim of fostering impunity in this case; that there has been negligence and unwillingness of the judicial authorities in processing of the judicial proceeding to try and to punish all those responsible for the murder of Myrna Mack, especially what they say regarding punishment of members of the high command of the General Staff at the time of the facts because they deliberately planned and ordered the execution of Myrna Mack. The Government of Guatemala never acknowledged said points, but rather it pointed out that they might be “factors with a possible impact on the difficulties and irregularities of the proceeding.” Finally, in said brief the State asked the Commission for “a modification of the conclusions” to its Report, bearing in mind that they are based on an acknowledgment that was not expressed in those terms.